|
The University of New England (UNE) began in 1938 as a college of the University of Sydney, becoming an autonomous, degree-granting institution in 1954. As Australia's first non-metropolitan university, located in the small country town of Armidale, New South Wales, it had necessarily to define its role in a rather different way from its predecessors, no easy task in a nation which still paid exaggerated deference to British norms. There were few precedents on which to rely. The civic universities of the United Kingdom all served much larger population centres, while nobody seriously supposed that Oxbridge could be translated to the New England highlands.
The preferred solution was radical in the circumstances of the time, involving as it did a decision to enrol students whose primary mode of instruction was to be by correspondence. If the people could not come to Armidale, then Armidale would go to the people. In effect, UNE opted to become what is now commonly known as a dual mode institution.
The move was regarded with horror by the University of Sydney, the reaction of its Professorial Board having been widely quoted ever since:
External studies are necessarily greatly inferior to internal studies and even with the most carefully organised and well staffed external department so little could be achieved and so imperfectly that the establishment of external studies cannot be recommended.... Indeed, there is a pressing danger that external studies will give the illusion of a University education without the reality. Students will go through the motions of study and believe that they have had a true University education when they have not (Smith, 1979).
Given this response there could obviously be no question of New England implementing its plans while under the tutelage of Sydney, and it may appear surprising that a commitment to external studies was written into the Act under which it eventually obtained its independence.
A number of factors help to explain the breakthrough. First, there was a precedent, although one which hardly commended itself to the traditionalists. The University of Queensland had not only enrolled external students since it opened its doors in 1911, but was probably the first institution in the world to offer full degree programs by correspondence. While the Sydney Professorial Board might believe that "...external systems in other Australian universities do not provide an example that would be recommended for imitation", generations of teachers in Queensland had already earned internationally recognized degrees while working in remote rural schools. It was the needs of such people which had prompted the Queensland Department of Public Instruction to join vote-seeking politicians in insisting that the University of Queensland accept an external studies mandate as the price of its foundation. Very similar forces were at work in New South Wales. There too rural teachers were seen as the main potential c
lientele for distance education, and there too it was an alliance between politicians and bureaucrats which swung the argument in favour of innovation (see Smith, 1979, and Thomis, 1985).
Academic staff were ambivalent at best. In fact, with a few honourable exceptions, those at Queensland had been hostile. It was difficult enough to convince one's peers that one was part of a world community of scholars when working in a colonial backwater; why compound the problem by becoming involved in an activity which was academically suspect? Resistance was never so marked atNew England, partly because Queensland had already given external studies a patina of respectability--in some eyes at least--and partly because it was difficult to envisage Armidale ever becoming the site of a major residential university. In retrospect though, it is interesting to speculate on whether either institution would have opted for distance education if it had been led by somebody from a conventional academic background. The first Vice-Chancellor at Queensland was L.H. Roe, who came to the university from the state public service after serving as headmaster of a leading grammar school. Its main architect was J.D. Story,
also a public servant, who had no university education of any kind. At New England the foundation Vice-Chancellor was Dr. R.B. (later Sir Robert) Madgwick, previously Director of Army Education and a man with a long-standing interest in adult and continuing education. All tended to be more conscious of the political pressures operating on educational institutions than the majority of academics, and far less worried by questions of professional status.
The rest is history. Within ten years UNE had outstripped Queensland as the country's largest provider of distance education. It has held that position ever since, despite a proliferation of programs in the nineteen-sixties and seventies which eventually saw more than thirty Australian institutions offering external courses. When the Commonwealth Government attempted to cut down the number in 1989, New England was one of eight universities designated as Distance Education Centres (DECs). By 1992 the Armidale campus had 9,493 external students out of a total enrolment of 14,653, one-third being post-graduates. Teachers have long since ceased to predominate, and eighty different qualifications now cover everything from Aboriginal Studies to Zoology. Being firmly discipline-based, UNE's curriculum may seem a little conservative in comparison with that of some of its competitors, and the university has a reputation for being conservative in other respects as well. However, this is not necessarily a l
iability in a situation of often bewildering change, nor has it inhibited experimentation. Alongside Latin and Classical Greek are taught Drama and Music, and UNE is more heavily involved than any other DEC in using interactive videoconferencing, talkback radio and broadcast television for educational purposes.
In terms of its significance for the wider distance education community, however, the most interesting thing about UNE is the extent to which its approach to external studies has been adopted by other institutions in Australia and overseas: some commentators use the term New England Model as if it were virtually synonymous with dual mode education, while few writings on the subject fail to mention the influence which Armidale has exerted on developments elsewhere.
This prompts a number of questions. What is the New England Model? What are its strengths and weaknesses? And how is it measuring up to the challenges which face distance education in Australia at the end of the twentieth century?
WHAT IS THE NEW ENGLAND MODEL?
In many ways the prominence accorded to UNE's experience is fortuitous. Some would argue that the 'model' is nothing more than an obvious response to problems posed by combining internal and external teaching in a single institution. Its main features were very similar to those originally obtaining at the University of Queensland, for example. However, in 1949 Queensland decided on a major change of policy, starting to appoint academic staff for the sole purpose of teaching external students, rather than expecting lecturers to work simultaneously in both modes. By the time that distance education began to attract the interest of policy makers around the world, Australia sported two variations on the dual mode theme. The terms New England Model and Queensland Model appeared at the same time, being intended to underline the distinction between a system with a fully integrated teaching staff and one in which there was some measure of specialization between modes. It was the former which exercised
the stronger appeal and has proved the more resilient. Being fortunate enough to have its brand name associated with a generic product, Armidale rode the wave to fame, if not to fortune.
Interestingly, when a committee was established to review external studies at the university in 1987, it failed to produce a definition of the New England Model, although unanimously agreeing that it was a Good Thing. The problem lay in deciding on which characteristics were of central importance and which could be varied without undermining the system's conceptual integrity. Some members believed the disciplinary orientation of degrees, use of compulsory residential schools and annual revision of teaching materials were essential features of the model, for example, while others argued that this was not the case. A distinction had to be made between the way in which distance education was actually practised at UNE and those elements in the mix which were of direct relevance to the question of how best to organize a dual mode institution. Issues such as the disciplinary basis of knowledge and value of face-to-face contact between staff and students might be of great educational concern, but the model was r
eally about management. Viewed in that light it could equally well be associated with a wide variety of educational philosophies and practices. Being unable to resolve the argument the committee eventually decided to avoid the word 'model' altogether, producing instead a list of "...key features of the University of New England's external studies operation", which was a grab-bag of educational and organizational characteristics (UNE, 1987).
Outside observers have had little more success in producing a concise and unambiguous definition, but two features are usually considered to be of paramount importance:
- Equivalence of standards between the two modes is underwritten by the use of a common curriculum taught by a single, integrated staff, evaluated by means of a single assessment system and leading to identical awards.
- Such development and support services as may be required for teaching in the external mode are handled by a separate, specialized unit, which has substantial administrative responsibilities but does not answer for the program's academic content or quality.
Both statements require some elaboration.
For example, the concept of equivalence of standards is fraught with difficulty. Given the very different circumstances in which they work, it is clearly impossible to devise a system which ensures that internal and external students receive an identical education. Substituting the word 'equivalent' for 'identical' makes the task a little easier, but ambiguities remain. Attempts to treat the two groups in exactly the same way are likely to produce divergent results. To ensure equivalence of outcomes one has to provide rather different teaching and support systems; it may even be necessary to modify the curriculum and assessment procedures. The extent to which such variations promote or detract from the pursuit of equivalence is a subject of perennial debate in dual mode institutions. And it is not clear how success or failure is to be measured. A common examination system may allow us to compare the two groups in terms of grades awarded, but tells us little about the quality of the educational process as a
whole.
While the discussion of such issues is often conducted in narrowly technical terms, it has a symbolic dimension as well. The adoption of equivalence as a goal suggests that the institution still sees conventional education as the touchstone of excellence. Although it does at least indicate that the educational claims of external studies are taken seriously, critics of the dual mode approach would say that distance education cannot realize its full potential while conducted in the shadow of the campus. Others will argue that this is the price which has to be paid for community acceptance, but it is clear that it also reflects lingering doubts among academics about the degree to which external studies is a valid form of instruction in its own right.
The second defining characteristic involves the difficulty of deciding what is meant by 'substantial administrative responsibilities'. The cluster of functions allocated to specialist units differs widely from institution to institution and from time to time. Most external studies directorates oversee the development, production and distribution of teaching materials. Some control printeries and media resource centres, whereas others purchase services of this kind. There is almost always some involvement in student support, although its nature and extent can vary. Until recently UNE's Distance Education Centre handled matters relating to the enrolment and counselling of external students for example, but these functions are now being decentralized to faculties. While every unit will produce cogent arguments in defence of its own particular brief, there seems to be no general rule about what should and should not be included.
In fact there is probably no activity which is an essential part of the directorate's mandate, or which could not be handled satisfactorily elsewhere in the institution. On the other hand, there are usually practical benefits to be derived from drawing a substantial number of functions together under one central management. It certainly makes for easier coordination of external studies operations and has generally been found to be cost-effective as well.
This is only part of the story, however. It is a mistake to judge such units solely in terms of their operational efficiency; their existence and organizational strength also have a bearing on the status accorded to distance education within the university as a whole. No matter how genuine the commitment to off-campus teaching, the student-at-the-study-door almost always takes precedence over the student-in-the-mailbox. An institution may minimize the bias by paying special attention to the needs of its externals, but the general experience has been one of discriminatory provision, often so deeply entrenched in attitudes, practices and procedures that it is barely recognized for what it is. The very different nature of the student body, the heavy reliance on industrial processes and the cultural predisposition to think of teaching as a classroom activity, all mean that distance programs have to fight a constant battle against marginalization. In this situation the specialist unit provides a vital focus of
concern for external students and external teaching. It is the one part of the organization which has a primary commitment to distance education, and which can therefore act as conscience, watchdog and goad. How effectively it fills those roles depends upon the leverage which it can exercise on the total system: the specific functions which it performs are not only important for their own sake, but for the influence which they enable the directorate to bring to bear on the processes of institutional governance.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
In general the University of New England's external studies system has worked well. The great majority of academics, students and administrators are pleased with the results achieved, and the program has a good reputation in the market place. There is little doubt that the model can deliver high quality education in a cost effective way, at least within the parameters of existing policy. Of course there is always room for improvement. UNE has sometimes been guilty of taking its success for granted, and complacency has occasionally resulted in a failure to question existing procedures, search out faults and explore new options. Critics will also claim that the university has become rather less user-friendly as it has grown in size. However, these are management problems which do not have their roots in the nature of the model itself.
Rather than examining particular operations in detail, it may be more useful to look at some of the limitations which are likely to be of interest to institutions embarking on dual mode teaching. Three are already apparent, and three more relate to the question of how well the system is likely to respond to fundamental changes in the educational environment. The first group of limitations is outlined below; the others will be dealt with in the following section.
- While the model has been reasonably successful in compensating for systemic bias against distance education on an operational level, it cannot claim to have eliminated the sources of that bias, or even modified them to any significant degree.
UNE is particularly well placed to ensure that the two modes enjoy true parity of esteem. It embraced external studies from the outset and relies on distance education for its survival. Staff have a contractual obligation to teach in both modes and are aware of this from the time of their recruitment. Very few are prepared to say that they regret their involvement, and most welcome the opportunity to deal with students whose motivation and maturity make them more rewarding to teach than the average internal class. A significant number of enthusiasts have always taken a genuine interest in the methodology of distance teaching and been prepared to work hard to improve their performance. Almost all defend the academic validity of external studies against those who question it.
And yet there is a residual belief that correspondence education is not something in which ,'real' academics should be involved, at least if they aspire to a place in the first rank of their profession. This generates an underlying uneasiness which is often evidenced by the very vigour with which it is denied. Were some enormous demographic shift to make it possible for UNE to become a conventional university, one suspects that few would really regret the change. Looking back on the early years Arch Nelson, who was Acting Director in 1955, commented on the tendency of institutions to regard external studies "...as a marginal extra, rather than integral to their purpose", and added "Perhaps this tendency is less in evidence than it used to be. Perhaps too, it is less evident at New England than elsewhere. Perhaps."
- There is also a sense in which the structures which help to counter systemic bias may simultaneously reinforce it. By carrying out a wide range of external studies tasks on behalf of academic departments and faculties, the external studies directorate distances them from many of the details involved and may weaken their sense of ownership.
To some extent this has been the case at UNE, where what used to be called the Department of External Studies offered a particularly comprehensive range of support services. Academics could leave everything but the immediate job of teaching to others, with the result that many had little understanding of how the system as a whole worked, or of the day-to-day preoccupations of students. At Queensland, the same tendency became even more marked after the appointment of specialist teaching staff to the Department of External Studies. What began as a centre of teaching excellence within the university eventually came to be seen as something of an educational ghetto.
There is no way of avoiding this problem altogether. A balance has to be struck between the need to build up a unit with sufficient authority to protect the interests of external teaching, and the need to ensure that it remains an integral part of the wider university community. To the extent that power leads to isolation, it can become self-defeating.
- A particularly important aspect of this dilemma relates to the distinction between academic concerns and administrative responsibilities. Superficially this distinction appears to provide an easy way of differentiating the legitimate interests of teaching departments from those of the external studies directorate. In practice, however, the dividing line is far from clear.
This may be true for all forms of education, but it is especially true in the case of external studies where so much of the interaction between staff and students is dependent on complex administrative processes. If these break down, education ceases. But, more to the point, the way they are handled has a direct bearing on the quality of the student's educational experience. There are obvious advantages in relieving academic staff of as much administrative routine as possible, but a system which leads to a rigid compartmentalization between teaching and administrative support can obscure the synergies which are an essential feature of effective distance education.
At UNE the first substantive Director of External Studies placed considerable emphasis on the nonacademic nature of his role (Smith, 1979, pp. 7- 13). Under his leadership the department acquired an influence which certainly helped to shape the institution's academic character, but the myth of administrative separation and subservience was assiduously maintained. More recently it has been challenged by the growing involvement of the Distance Education Centre in course development and instructional design, which inevitably impinge on academic autonomy, and by the appointment of a director with academic status. However, the great majority of teaching staff still fail to appreciate how closely interwoven academic and administrative consideration have to be in the mounting of a successful distance education program. While this may not have been a major concern in the context of the system as it has functioned to date, it will take on greater significance as teaching departments assume direct responsibility for
funding external studies operations.
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
The concerns mentioned above are all implicit in the model as it has operated in the past and do not detract from the general conclusion that it has served the purposes for which it was designed. However, Australian higher education is currently involved in changes which are likely to test the system to its limits and beyond. The way in which institutions react to these changes will tell us a good deal about the capacity of dual mode education to meet challenges of a more searching kind.
- To what extent can the model be adapted to meet the growing demand for open education?
It was external studies which first dragged education out of the classroom, disproving traditional assumptions about the constraints which time and place impose on the teaching/learning process. Some would argue that the open learning movement simply takes these developments to their logical conclusion. At first sight there appears to be no reason why external studies programs should not be modified and expanded in order to allow for a dramatic increase in their flexibility and accessibility.
In practice this is far from easy. A close personal relationship between teachers and students is a central feature of almost all dual mode institutions, whether or not they involve an element of face-to-face teaching in their external programs. To some extent student numbers can be increased by the use of tutors and exploitation of new technologies, but there must come a point at which personal contact is lost. When this happens, many of the basic operating assumptions of the system cease to hold and a radical reappraisal is called for. The integrated teaching model is not well placed to undertake a reappraisal of this kind. Because the two modes are so closely intermeshed it is extremely difficult to break away from a common framework of rules and procedures, usually formulated in response to the needs of the internal program. There is no good reason why distance education should be bound by the rigidities of the academic year, for example, but it almost always is. Variations between the modes are genera
lly relatively minor and achieved at considerable cost.
In other words, the difference between external studies and open learning may be a difference of kind rather than degree. Holmberg regards the New England Model as the prototype of small-scale distance education systems, for example, and contrasts this with such large-scale operations as that of the British Open University. While he believes there are "Far-reaching parallels between these two forms of study" they are in some respects 'opposites' reflecting very different approaches to education. He argues that UNE's approach necessarily imposed the same restrictions on distance study as apply in traditional study, and adds "To the extent that in systems adopting these limitations, the type of distance education applied is felt to be innovative, it is ... innovation within the accepted paradigm." (Holmberg, 1989, p.5 and p.152) Other writers offer more complex typologies which tend to blur the distinction, but there are real doubts about the ability of dual mode institutions to make the transition to more t
ruly open education.
The issue is of more than theoretical concern in Australia, where governments have consistently backed away from the financial and political implications of establishing a single open university, preferring to build a national system around existing dual mode institutions. So far the feasibility of this approach has not really been tested, Canberra having held student numbers down to levels which are compatible with the integrated model, and being prepared to provide the resources necessary to fund small unit enrolments and intensive staff/student interaction.
However, the pressure for change is rapidly growing. For some years there has been discussion about ways in which the system might be 'rationalized' in the interests of economy. Most of the suggested reforms are described as incremental, but in reality break the traditional nexus between modes of study. Public servants are inclined to attribute the lack of progress to the conservatism of universities, while universities argue that existing government policies militate against any major shift from current practice. The possibility that there may be a structural incompatibility between the existing system and long-term objectives is seldom recognized.
Recently the debate has acquired a new urgency. Frustrated by an embarrassing shortfall in university places, politicians have taken matters into their own hands. In 1991 an Open Learning Policy Unit was set up in the federal Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), operating quite independently of those sections of the ministry which deal with distance education. At the same time a TV Open Learning initiative was launched, designed to make credit courses available to the public via the ABC's national television service. Five courses have already gone to air and more are on the way.
Belated attempts are being made to pull the various strands together. The Open Learning Policy Unit is talking to external studies providers, a number of committees are preparing reports on the interface between distance education and open learning, and the television project is being run by a consortium of DECS, which includes UNE. However, fundamental problems remain to be resolved. The universities with a stake in TV Open Learning are having difficulty in reconciling the demands of this experiment with their more conventional programs. There is also widespread scepticism about the relevance of the forthcoming reports, and mounting speculation about the possibility that a massive increase in the television project will be announced before the trial program has been properly evaluated.
At this point it remains unclear whether a system will emerge which reconciles external studies with open learning and, in the process, advances our understanding of the relationship between structures and functions in distance education. The alternative is presumably a bifurcated system in which external studies takes a secondary and subordinate place.
- To what extent can the model be adapted to meet the demands of mixed mode operations and resource-based teaching?
The move to greater flexibility in program structure and delivery on the national scene is matched by increasing pressure to break down the distinction between internal and external teaching within institutions. It has long been the practice to use materials produced for external students on campus as well. Universities differ in the extent to which they have encouraged this development, but it is generally true to say that academic staff have been slow to accept resource-based teaching as a satisfactory alternative to lecturing. More often than not materials have been used as reinforcement for more conventional approaches or, at best, as a partial substitute for face-to-face contact. There has been much less resistance to the idea of students working in both modes simultaneously, perhaps because it poses a less direct challenge to the lecturer's self -image.
However, there are now signs that the use of materials across modes is becoming much more common. This may mean that proponents of resource-based teaching are winning their case, but it probably owes more to the fact that falling staff numbers and rising class sizes are making it virtually impossible to maintain past teaching practices unchanged.
Many of those working in external studies will welcome this development as vindication of a view which they have been pressing for many years. At the same time it involves dangers. If all teaching is to be based on pre-prepared materials, what reason is there for maintaining distinctive structures for external studies? The answer, of course, is that those structures do not simply relate to the production of teaching materials, but also reflect the very different delivery and support needs of external students. Unfortunately it is in precisely these areas that the temptation to look for quick economics is often most in evidence. There is a real risk that a gradual breaking down of barriers between the modes, so desirable in many respects, will lead to the dissolution of structural support mechanisms which have evolved over many years. If it is true that dual mode institutions are always inclined to discriminate against off-campus students, the loss of such safeguards could lead to a rapid fall in the qualit
y of external studies programs.
- To what extent is the model compatible with the decentralization of financial responsibility to faculties and departments?
While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that Australian universities have a common approach to management, most are rapidly moving towards systems which involve much closer links between academic decision-making and the allocation of resources. Typically, faculties which were once exclusively concerned with questions of academic governance have become cost centres, responsible for balancing their books and, where possible, generating surpluses. There can be little doubt that this approach has considerable advantages over one in which there were only the most tenuous links between academic developments and their likely cost.
Among these advantages must be counted the fact that administrative expenditure is coming under much closer scrutiny than in the past. Although administrators often complain that academics fail to appreciate the importance of their contribution and pursue supposed economies with excessive zeal, most agree that the general effect is to improve the efficiency of institutions as a whole.
The impact on academic support services is rather less certain. Whereas the normal practice is to fund core administrative functions prior to the allocation of resources to cost centres, there is a growing tendency to require support operations to pay their way by selling their services to users around the campus. If they are valued by academics they will flourish; if not, they will go into sharp decline. The harsh logic of this arrangement is easy to understand, but could have worrying consequences.
Specialist distance education units are particularly at risk. Given the tendency for academic departments to favour on-campus students, any system which gives them a direct choice between expenditure on the two modes may well lead to a shift away from services for externals, especially since the academic import of supposedly administrative services may not be fully appreciated. And once the operational base of the external studies directorate is eroded, the unit begins to lose its value as a countervailing force in the setting of institutional priorities.
It is too early to say that this will happen, but the majority of Distance Education Centres report signs that it could. At UNE the DEC is experiencing a dramatic loss of control as a result of the rapid and poorly planned decentralization of both functions and finances. Attempts are being made to compensate for the loss of operational centrality by reinforcing the centre's powers in the areas of quality control and policy formulation. This may be a logical development of the model, but nobody yet knows how effective such a change of focus will prove to be. It remains to be seen whether distance education is moving into the academic mainstream, as the proponents of such changes claim, or will have to face a new period of marginalization.
CONCLUSION
The New England Model has been a success in its own terms. It offers a framework within which teaching institutions can make their expertise available to a wider public without compromising academic standards. Admittedly it does not resolve the tensions between internal and external studies nearly as effectively as some of its supporters claim, and the heavy emphasis placed on inter-model equivalence makes for relatively high unit costs and restricts the system's capacity for innovation. However, single mode institutions are not entirely immune from such limitations either (Harris, 1987), and the constraints have not prevented UNE from providing high qualify, multi-media education for up to 10,000 students at a time.
The real problems arise when one wishes to cater for significantly greater numbers, at significantly less cost, and with a significantly greater degree of flexibility. There is a good deal of force in Holmberg's argument that such major changes are incompatible with the relationship between modes which is the defining characteristic of the New England Model.
That need not mean that such changes are incompatible with dual mode education, or that there is a point beyond which UNE's experience becomes irrelevant. As Queensland's experiment with the appointment of specialist staff suggests, there are other ways of organizing teaching in two modes. Very few of these have yet been explored in any depth, because the success of the integrated model has made it unnecessary to look any further. The pressures which are now being brought to bear on the system may generate entirely new solutions, although it is unlikely that these will be able to transcend the dilemmas with which we have been wrestling in Armidale over the past thirty-seven years.
REFERENCES
Commonwealth of Australia (1975). Open Tertiary Education in Australia: Final Report of the Committee on Open University to the Universities Commission. Canberra.
Harmon, E.J. (1991). The Cost of Distance Education at Australian Distance Education Centres: Report prepared for the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Working Party on External Load Funding of the National Distance Education Conference. Canberra: DEET.
Harris, D. (1987). Openness and Closure in Distance Education. London: The Falmer Press.
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.
Johnson, R. (1983). The Provision of External Studies in Australian Higher Education. Canberra: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission.
Renwick, W., Drake, St.C., and Shale, D. (1991). Distance Education at the University of the South Pacific. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.
Richmond, W. (1990). The Ending of an Era: External Studies in the University of Queensland. Brisbane: University of Queensland, School of External Studies and Continuing Education.
Sheath, H.C. (1965). External Studies: The First Ten Years, 1955-1964. Armidale: UNE.
Smith, K.C. (1979). External Studies at New England - a Silver Jubilee Review, 1955-79. Armidale: UNE.
Thomis, M. (1985). A Place of Light and Learning: the University of Queensland's First Seventy-five Years. St. Lucia: UQP.
University of New England (1987). Report of the Vice-Chancellor's Committee to Review the Department of External Studies. Armidale: UNE.
|
